The Ultimate fighter 13 Finale - LIVE DISCUSSION

[Kaladarus]

We're all MMA fans here and we know how matches are judged. Obviously most people would like to customize the rules and change them to make the sport more entertaining. If anyone seriously thought even for a second that Guida wouldn't get a 30-27 unanimous decision then they have no idea how MMA is judged. This is a MMA handicapping forum and I suggest anyone that couldn't see the 30-27 to re-evaluate their handicapping skills. Guida landed more strikes in every round including the second and maintained top control for the majority of the round. I also do believe Johnson deserved the win against Torres. He did what he needed to do to get the judges nod. It was a close fight, but based on what we've seen in the past it should have been expected for him to win based on what happened in the match. It is kind of convenient that I was on Sanchez, Johnson and Guida in all three of those fights, but I know that their styles win fights.

[Kaladarus]

I would also like to add that people's opinions on decisions mean nothing. You should judge a decision based on decisions that have happened in the past and not judging criteria.

[Ladle]

There is a difference between knowing how the judges are going to score a fight and knowing how a fight deserves to be scored.

If anyone seriously thought even for a second that Guida wouldn't get a 30-27 unanimous decision then they have no idea how MMA is judged.

I totally expected it too, but that's not my point. He didn't deserve a 30-27 decision win because he was continually put into a position where he was forced to defend (particularly in the second round). Pettis was actively trying to finish the fight and that should have been reflected in the scoring, but it wasn't.

I would also like to add that people's opinions on decisions mean nothing. You should judge a decision based on decisions that have happened in the past and not judging criteria.

I know my opinion on a decision isn't relevant in a betting sense. Obviously you need to tailor your bets to suit how MMA is (wrongly) judged, hence why I hedged my Torres and Pettis bets with Johnson by decision and Guida by decision. I get the betting aspect of it, and that's not what I'm disputing. This is what I'm disputing:

If anything you should lose points for unsuccessful submission attempts kind of like you lose points for unsuccessful takedowns. If Pettis wanted to win he should of put himself in a position to win. It was obvious to me that he had no chance at all of submitting Guida and that he was just wasting time on the ground. If he wanted to score points he should have got off the floor and landed something. Guida landed more every single round, took the fight where he wanted it and pushed the pace. There was no round that wasn't clearly a 10-9. I guarantee you if that fight was to happen all over again Pettis would completely change his game plan.

Here you were actually trying to justify the decision, and that's my problem. Yes, it was the expected result. Yes, it was reflective of how fights have been scored in the past. But was a 30-27 scorecard justified? Of course it wasn't. If someone puts forward barely any offense in a round, and is continually put into a position where they're forced to defend because their opponent continually attacks, do they deserve to win that round? Only in la-la land.

Guida landed more strikes in every round including the second and maintained top control for the majority of the round.

He was continually put in danger by Pettis from the bottom. That deserves to take precedence over the fact that Guida was on top. Simple fact of the matter is that Pettis actively tried to finish and Guida did nothing except defend.

I also do believe Johnson deserved the win against Torres. He did what he needed to do to get the judges nod. It was a close fight, but based on what we've seen in the past it should have been expected for him to win based on what happened in the match.

He did what he had to do to win, but that doesn't mean he deserved to win. Once again, there is a big difference between being expected to win and deserving to win. I expected Johnson to win, but there's no way it was warranted when you consider that he was totally out-fought from bottom for the best part of the fight. The vast majority of people agree with that view.

It is kind of convenient that I was on Sanchez, Johnson and Guida in all three of those fights, but I know that their styles win fights.

It certainly does. Just don't try to justify the rationale behind the judging.

[urge2kill]

The current rules suck. Takedowns and positional control should be worthless if you can't do anything with them.

[Ladle]

The current rules suck. Takedowns and positional control should be worthless if you can't do anything with them.

Yup. Although, the rules aren't really the problem; it's the judges who apply them. In other words, it's not the tools, it's the craftsmen.

[bogbat]

I was reading through the posts that were made since last night and was mentally preparing my responses, but Ladle said pretty much everything I was going to say. Thanks for saving me time brother

[Ladle]

I was reading through the posts that were made since last night and was mentally preparing my responses, but Ladle said pretty much everything I was going to say. Thanks for saving me time brother

Glad to see we're in agreement bogbat. United in our contempt of judges.

[Camdemonium]

Thanks for saying all of that. I hate being the guy that just rants a lot. You should have seen me at my buddies house. I was furious.

[stefan084]

Cheeese nailed it here. How much credit should a fighter get for attempting submissions and failing? I have long said that too much credit is given for takedowns. I feel equal consideration should be given to a fighter who gets taken down and then immediately escapes back to the feet without taking damage. Pettis failed to stop takedowns, failed to sweep, failed at catching Guida in a submission, and failed to force stand-ups. I don't give Pettis any points for being able to hold onto Guida's wrist while laying on his back.

Look, Pettis knew what he had to do against Guida to beat him. He underestimated Guida's ability or overestimated his ability to stop him. Either way, though it nay not have been the most exciting win, Guida executed his game plan of taking Pettis down and keeping it there. I see no other possible outcome for the judges than a 30-27 win for Guida.

pettis failed to stop the takedowns no doubt but it is virtually impossible to go for submissions while forcing stand-ups at the same time. pettis could have (probably should have) just locked up rubber guard and waited to be stood up, however when the ref sees pettis throwing up constant triangle attempts etc. he's not going to stand him up because a triangle could end the fight. guida is good at looking like he's trying to improve his position but in reality he has very little offensive bjj skills and is buying time on the ground to both sway the judges with aggression and stay away from his striking weaknesses which are numerous. i give credit and points should be awarded for guidas takedowns, but once on the ground he never improved his position and actually was the closest of the two to being in real danger. a hypothetical i was thinking about: what if pettis had pulled guard thus robbing guida of the takedown points and the refs started judging from this typical bjj position? i'd have to give it to pettis because he was the one threatening the most danger of ending the fight. according to a previous poster pettis would get points for the multiple sub attempts while guida would get points for the takedowns---so why is the wrestling aspect of mma overshadowing the bjj aspects? sorry to go on but it's been pissing me off the last couple years

[bjpenn85]

if ufc was a brazilian organization existing in brazil. And all the guys that was in the ufc came from a bjj backround, and the judges only recognised bjj, then the scoring probably would look differently. Pettis however should have been prepared. his stance should have been lower, like marquart against palhares. Broad based, and hands low ready for the underhooks. Its bizarre that duke didnt focus more on that. Seems like he was surprised that guida attempted to take him down.

[stefan084]

the ufc doesn't have to be a brazilian organization to understand bjj. the rules say sub attempts should be recognized in scoring then recognize them, simple as that. the ufc is not an all wrestling organization either, but it favors that form of fighting over all others.in general a takedown in a ufc fight seems to cancel out an entire round of superior striking or bjj, judo etc. i don't think pettis won the fight but why should takedowns with no damage resulting win over sub attempts with no sub resulting? not everyone comes from a wrestling background so it shouldn't be rewarded anymore than bjj imo

[jesuseatsnubs]

wow are you guys for real ? I watched the Anthony pettis vs Guida fight TWICE now .. and Anthony pettis lost by a mile .. Guida landed more punches .. he controlled the fight and he took him down almost every single time he wanted to .. I'm sorry .. but your boy Pettis lost that night .. there is no way in hell the judges could of gave the fight 29-28 in favour of Pettis .. not even a draw .. Guida won ... and I had the fight scored 30-27 as well ..

[stefan084]

if you read my post i never said pettis won nor is he my "boy"-- I didn't have anything on the fights. I'm saying that in general bjj sub attempts, sweeps,etc should be given equal consideration in judging fights as wrestling

[bogbat]

Even though I've been arguing a case for Pettis I haven't said that I think he won. I need to watch it again but I think it was a draw at best. I know he won the second round without a doubt.

[Kaladarus]

Guys L2MMA please. We've seen what the judges look for in fights. Judging criteria and rules they are supposed to use mean nothing. Based on what we've seen in the past there is no reason to think Guida wasn't getting a 30-27. Guida and his camp did their homework and they knew what they had to do to win the fight. Pettis, his camp, his mother, his brother and all his cousins should have taken the time to look at any fight that's happened past where someone was using Pettis' strategy. It's impossible for Pettis to have come to that fight with a worse strategy than the one he used. Judging has always been a problem and may always be a problem, but the judges have remained consistent in the way they score points.

[Ladle]

Guys L2MMA please. We've seen what the judges look for in fights. Judging criteria and rules they are supposed to use mean nothing. Based on what we've seen in the past there is no reason to think Guida wasn't getting a 30-27. Guida and his camp did their homework and they knew what they had to do to win the fight. Pettis, his camp, his mother, his brother and all his cousins should have taken the time to look at any fight that's happened past where someone was using Pettis' strategy. It's impossible for Pettis to have come to that fight with a worse strategy than the one he used. Judging has always been a problem and may always be a problem, but the judges have remained consistent in the way they score points.

You're either misunderstanding our point, or you're dodging it. We all have a perfectly good understanding of how fights are judged and we all expected Guida to win 30-27. The point we're making is that fights are not being judged how they should be judged. You tried to justify the judges' scoring, and it was that which we took issue with. You can't intelligently support giving a round to a fighter who puts forward barely any offense, especially when they're continually put into a position where they're forced to defend because their opponent continually attacks and tries to finish the fight. It's as simple as that, and I don't think there's any logical counter-argument.

[Kaladarus]

I'm not defending the judges. I know how the judges make decisions though and like you said so does everyone else. I pointed out what the judges saw and why they scored the fight for Guida.

Your opinion is that fighters don't deserve to win if they're not actually winning the fight according to actual judging criteria.

In my opinion, they deserve to win. They've done their home work and know what the judges look for. Just like MMA handicappers, the camps should train the fighters to win decisions not based on judging criteria, but based on judging results from the past. Until the judging changes and there becomes evidence of a new system or new criteria then there's no reason to think that what has been happening will not continue to happen.

I wish judging was better and the rules were clear cut and always followed, but this isn't the case. Guida's camp knew what Guida did would win him that fight. Pettis' camp should have known better.

[Ladle]

I'm not defending the judges. I know how the judges make decisions though and like you said so does everyone else. I pointed out what the judges saw and why they scored the fight for Guida.

You said there was no round which wasn't clearly a 10-9 for Guida. In that statement alone, you're defending the judges' decision. The second round was not a 10-9 for Guida under the judging criteria, and I think I've substaniated why it wasn't.

Your opinion is that fighters don't deserve to win if they're not actually winning the fight according to actual judging criteria.

Correct. Every person with a rational brain should share this view.

In my opinion, they deserve to win. They've done their home work and know what the judges look for. Just like MMA handicappers, the camps should train the fighters to win decisions not based on judging criteria, but based on judging results from the past. Until the judging changes and there becomes evidence of a new system or new criteria then there's no reason to think that what has been happening will not continue to happen.

Why on earth should a fighter be rewarded for putting forward zero offense? That's preposterous. It doesn't make them worthy winners just because they attempt to adhere to the awful, ill-informed judges who can't carry out their job correctly. I'm shocked that another fight fan could think otherwise.

Until the judging changes and there becomes evidence of a new system or new criteria then there's no reason to think that what has been happening will not continue to happen.

Nope. Bad judges will make bad decisions under any kind of system. As I said, it's not the tools, it's the craftsmen.

[Kaladarus]

Why on earth should a fighter be rewarded for putting forward zero offense? That's preposterous. It doesn't make them worthy winners just because they attempt to adhere to the awful, ill-informed judges who can't carry out their job correctly. I'm shocked that another fight fan could think otherwise.

First of all I'm not a fight fan, I'm a MMA fan.

Why not? What does offense have to do with anything in MMA? This is a sport it isn't street fighting. I have a love and respect for the game and not just the violent aspects of it. The winner wins decisions based on points. How would it possibly be fair to penalize Guida and just about everyone in Greg Jackson's camp for doing things that have always secured victories in the judge's eyes? A rational brain would do things that made sense based on the task at hand. If you know certain info about certain things that would give you an edge in almost anything you would be irrational to not use those things to your advantage.

[Kaladarus]

It would have been irrational for Guida to change his game plan so he could do more damage also.

[FightFightFight]

Obviously, its a sport, and one thats supposed to mimick fighting as closely as possible. Should be based solely on damage, or since theres a time limit, implied damage, which are sub attempts, control, etc. A takedown should be worth only what you can do with it, which in Guidas case was shoulder strikes to the body for gods sake. Also a takedown can be control but it wasnt here, not more than Pettis had control from bottom anyways. If it went on, who do you honestly think would have won based on what was happening.

[Kaladarus]

Guida would have won for sure. Pettis would have tired out before Guida and Pettis never came close to finishing Guida that entire fight. At the end of the third I don't know if you saw, but Guida was about to submit Pettis.

What damage and positions should be worth are just opinions and everyone will always have different ones.

The bottom line is that we all know how the judges judge and the fighters all know how the judges judge. If a fighter wants to win then they need to do what has always been done to win.

[Kaladarus]

You all can say that Pettis had control on the bottom, but we all know this isn't the case. Ask yourself this, did Pettis want the fight on the ground? I don't think so. He never pulled guard the entire fight and he never went for takedowns. Guida had the fight where he wanted it for almost the full three rounds. Pettis was trying to get up because he didn't have control on the bottom. Pettis did very little damage the entire fight and was wearing down at a much faster pace than Guida was.

[stefan084]

Pettis actually came VERY close to finishing the fight with a triangle on a couple occasions

[Poppa Catfish]

With all due respect, no he really wasn't close at all.

[Gee]

Pettis never looked close to finishing anything really. Guida nearly got caught at the end of the 2nd, but that always happens when there are is only 15 secs let - people don't worry about getting submitted much.

I was on Pettis, but thought Guida won that fight. The problem was that Pettis kept geting taken down, when he clearly didn't want to go there.

This is why i used to love pride. Who remember that Rico/Nog fight from 2003? where Rico attempted the lay and pray, but Nog's aggressiveness off the bottom got him the decision.

[bogbat]

Pettis never looked close to finishing anything really. Guida nearly got caught at the end of the 2nd, but that always happens when there are is only 15 secs let - people don't worry about getting submitted much. I was on Pettis, but thought Guida won that fight. The problem was that Pettis kept geting taken down, when he clearly didn't want to go there. This is why i used to love pride. Who remember that Rico/Nog fight from 2003? where Rico attempted the lay and pray, but Nog's aggressiveness off the bottom got him the decision.

I think someone around here already said this but Pettis probably could have pulled rubber guard to get the ref to stand them up if he wanted to but instead he opted to fight of his back.

[bogbat]

I listen to MMA podcasts when I workout. Today I was listening to beatdown on the sherdog radio network and the two hosts were arguing about who won rounds in this fight. It sounded as if they were reading posts out of these forums because they were making exactly the same points. I think this illustrates just how far this problem reaches. I came to the conclusion that the rules really need to be expanded upon so there is less individual interpretation.

The podcast I'm talking about is here: http://www.sherdog.com/radio/Beatdow...y-Florian-1940 The start of the debate/argument starts around 15 mins in.

[v1y]

I think someone around here already said this but Pettis probably could have pulled rubber guard to get the ref to stand them up if he wanted to but instead he opted to fight of his back.

Yeap, this was something Joe Rogan mentioned too. In reality, all referee standups should be eliminated, and Pettis should have used his guard to stand back up instead of chase submissions.

[Ladle]

What does offense have to do with anything in MMA?

That is totally absurd. According to the judging criteria, it has everything to do with offense.

The winner wins decisions based on points.

Points which should be awarded to the guy who puts forward offense and tries to finish the fight, as opposed to his opponent who does nothing but defend.

First of all I'm not a fight fan, I'm a MMA fan.

This is a sport it isn't street fighting. I have a love and respect for the game and not just the violent aspects of it. The winner wins decisions based on points. How would it possibly be fair to penalize Guida and just about everyone in Greg Jackson's camp for doing things that have always secured victories in the judge's eyes? A rational brain would do things that made sense based on the task at hand. If you know certain info about certain things that would give you an edge in almost anything you would be irrational to not use those things to your advantage.

As FightFightFight correctly pointed out, this sport is replicating fighting. It deserves to be judged accordingly.

Also, at which point did I criticise Clay Guida for his actions in that fight? At which point did I say that Clay Guida wasn't fighting logically? I didn't say - or imply - either of those things. I say "fair enough" to Clay Guida for doing what he had to do to win. But that isn't the point. The point is, he didn't deserve a 30-27 score card, just like Demetrious Johnson didn't deserve a 29-28 scorecard against Miguel Torres. Under the criteria, Guida deserved to lose the second round. Under the criteria, Demetrious Johnson probably deserved to lose all three rounds. Just because they both fought in a way which pleased the moronic judges does not mean that those scorecards were justified.

Guida would have won for sure. Pettis would have tired out before Guida and Pettis never came close to finishing Guida that entire fight. At the end of the third I don't know if you saw, but Guida was about to submit Pettis.

Bunkum! I don't know how you can say that Pettis' submission attempts were completely unthreatening, yet Guida "was about to submit him" at the end. That's enormously biased analysis.

You all can say that Pettis had control on the bottom, but we all know this isn't the case. Ask yourself this, did Pettis want the fight on the ground? I don't think so. He never pulled guard the entire fight and he never went for takedowns.

Totally irrelevant to the point. Pettis tried to finish the fight off of his back and continually put Guida in a position where he was forced to defend. Ergo, for portions of the fight, Pettis was winning from the bottom. Simple as that.

Guida had the fight where he wanted it for almost the full three rounds.

Which resulted in him sitting there and defending whilst his opponent mounted the offense.

Pettis was trying to get up because he didn't have control on the bottom.

You forgot the part where he tried to submit him about ten times, and came particularly close on one occasion.

Pettis did very little damage the entire fight

Out-landed him on the feet and actively tried to finish on the ground. He had more offense than Guida.

and was wearing down at a much faster pace than Guida was.

Irrelevant to the point.

[stefan084]

With all due respect, no he really wasn't close at all.

you have little understanding of jiu jitsu--he all but had the triangle locked twice

[Poppa Catfish]

you have little understanding of jiu jitsu--he all but had the triangle locked twice

Sorry champ, wrong again

[stefan084]

Sorry champ, wrong again

really? how long have you been training bjj and how much do you pay per month because I think your being overcharged. A white belt knows the intricacies of the triangle/armbar combination set up

[Poppa Catfish]

really? how long have you been training bjj and how much do you pay per month because I think your being overcharged. A white belt knows the intricacies of the triangle/armbar combination set up

Agreed, so why are you failing so?

[stefan084]

what the hell are you talking about? i think i'm wasting my time here so i'll just say good luck in your training sir